Attorney Representing Bryan Singer Accuser Dropping His Client

Amidst claims that relationships between he and his client have deteriorated over the past few months Jeff Herman, the attorney representing Michael Egan who is suing Bryan Singer over claims of sexual abuse, is in the process of  dropping his client.  

Screenshot 2014-07-30 08.49.25Martin Singer, Bryan Singer’s representation, has gone public stating that Egan attempted to contact them with a potential settlement draft complete with scripted language to be used by both parties after the agreement was made official. Both Bryan and Martin Singer’s signatures appear on the agreement for $100,000, though Egan’s is inconspicuously absent.

“This exact kind of take-it-and-shut-up deal is why I decided to stand up in the first place,” Egan told Buzzfeed. “Being silenced goes completely against what I believe in and offers no protection for other vulnerable children.”

Though Egan seems to have decided against his earlier suggestion for settlement, Singer and his team have expressed their resolve not to settle out of court. Singer cites his desire to act in his client’s best business interests as the reasoning behind their initial consideration of a settlement, but the team has since moved to have the case dismissed in Hawaii federal court.

“Once we prevail, we intend to go after Mr. Egan,” Singer expressed.

Read the full memorandum of settlement here AFTER THE JUMP

Egan v Singer Memorandum of Settlement

 

Comments

  1. Tigernan says

    I’m confused – did Singer draft a “go away” agreement that they singed, but Egan did not, or did HE whip it up, sign their names, and then they told Egan to jump in a lake?

  2. Eric says

    Yeah – I think that some of the names have been switched up. This doesn’t make sense to me:

    “Singer cites his desire to act in his client’s best business interests as the reasoning behind their initial consideration of a settlement, but the team has since moved to have the case dismissed in Hawaii federal court.”

    eh?

  3. ascanius says

    between HIM and his client! that point of grammar is usually taught in elementary school.

  4. jason MacBride says

    Singer would save money paying the clown 100k. The trial would cost a lot more.

  5. WOLF says

    Did you highly transparent queens ever consider than maybe, just maybe Singer did do the things he is accused of? Maybe a trial is necessary to bring it all to light.

  6. David From Canada says

    This guy, Michael Egan, never made it in Hollywood and now he’s out for a money grab, plain and simple.

  7. Profe Sancho Panza says

    Whether Bryan Singer is guilty or not isn’t the question that Egan’s lawyer is concerned with – his job is to get the best possible outcome for his client (and, obviously, himself; this isn’t pro bono work) working with the evidence they actually have and the case they can present in court.

    It sounds as though, based on the evidence they’ve gathered (or lack thereof), Egan’s lawyer felt that the $100,000 settlement was the best Egan could hope to do, and now Egan doesn’t want to go that route against his attorney’s advice. Given Bryan Singer’s wealth and the potential size of a jury award, Egan’s lawyer must think Egan has no realistic chance to prevail at trial, or else he’d stay with the case.

  8. rascal says

    This post is nearly incomprehensible. Andy, get some bloggers who can write a basic news report.

  9. CPT_Doom says

    If you read the Buzzfeed article, it is clear that it was the accuser’s team that sent the draft memorandum to Singer and his lawyer (and they initially considered the deal as a means to making it all go away), but even that article implies it was Egan, not his lawyer, who approached the two. So either the lawyer went behind his client’s back to get a quickie $100k, or Egan forged his lawyer’s name in an attempt to get something while his story fell apart.

  10. JackFknTwist says

    Bryan Singer = plaintiff.
    Michael Egan = defendant.

    Martin Singer, Attorney for the Plaintiff.

    It seems to be alleged that Egan, the defendant acting alone, approached the plaintiff and his Attorney.

    Now the defendant’s attorney is really pi$$ed.

  11. JeffNYC says

    No, that’s wrong.

    Jeff Herman, Egan’s then-attorney, decided all they could get was $100,000. He drew up the memorandum of settlement, had Bryan Singer and his lawyer sign it and presented it to Egan.

    Egan then refused, and so Jeff Herman is dropping him as a client.

    Andy–this writer is a DISASTER.

  12. Kit says

    Your opening statement should be “Amidst claims that relationships between HIM and his client have deteriorated . . . ” If you’re going to be a writer, make sure the grammar is correct. “Between” is a preposition and requires an OBJECTIVE pronoun in this instance, not a SUBJECTIVE one.

  13. Emerson says

    @Wolf

    Stop calling every gay male you disagree with a queen, it only shows how bitterly self-hating you are.

    Good day.

  14. e.c. says

    $100k. Wow, I’d get more if I got bit by my neighbor’s dog. You would think if Egan really had anything even a tiny bit damaging on Singer he could have squeezed him for at least half a million.

  15. Tyler. says

    So Andy doesn’t hire competent writers and won’t invest money into a new commenting system.

    What exactly is all that extra ad revenue going towards, exactly? Because it certainly doesn’t appear it’s going into improving/adapting the site and is instead going directly into the pockets of those in charge.

  16. Paul says

    “Amidst claims that relationships(???) between he(!!!!) and his client have deteriorated”

    I think the word you’re looking for is “relations” and it’s HIM not he.

  17. Randy says

    I read the document and I am a lawyer. It appears that the defendant, Bryan Singer, drafted the memo f settlement, offering $1000,000 to make the case go away. Singer and his lawyer signed it. Egans’s attorney signed it. Al. That is needed is Egan himself to sign it. He did not.

    Based on that, I would surmise that Egans attorney negotiated this settlement with singer, but Egan refused. The attorney probably thought this was the beat outcome for his client based on the strength of the evidence they could present in court, and the costs of a trial, a reasonable outcome, etc. it does NOt mean anything regarding the underlying facts of whether th alleged incidents occurred. They might have, but the question is whether they can prove it in court by a preponderance of the evidence. That is a heavy burden. They other side will dig up what ever damaging evidence they can about Egan to pursuade the jury he is lying, untruthful, or nuts.

    Based on all that, the attorney is just doing his job, and probably tried to convince Egan to sign. When Egan said no, then it likely means Egan wants to pursue for more money or go to trial. All those expenses are borne by the Attorney, of course, so he no doubt told Egan that iS all the time and money he will put into this case, and if he can find another Attorney, good luck.

  18. MickyFlip says

    Thanks for clarifying Robert. Doesn’t look too good for Mr. Egan. But I do have a question regarding Mr. Singer. Considering he signed the document willing to pay 100k.. Is that somewhat of an admission of guilt on his part? Or just a ‘take the money and go away’ deal?

  19. crispy says

    “What exactly is all that extra ad revenue going towards, exactly?”

    Spending the summer in P-town ain’t cheap!

  20. Daniel says

    MICKYFLIP, Often companies and celebrities will try to settle no matter the truth of the claim because often a trial will be more costly and damaging.

  21. Lexis says

    @ JackFknTwist

    You have the roles backwards. Michael Egan originated the action, so he is the “plaintiff” in this civil case, elsewhere referred to as the “complainant” in such a lawsuit, as he is the party who made the original complaint. Bryan Singer is the “defendant,” elsewhere referred to as the “respondent,” since he is the person who must respond to the original complaint and defend himself.

    Bryan Singer = plaintiff.
    Michael Egan = defendant.

    Martin Singer, Attorney for the Plaintiff.

    It seems to be alleged that Egan, the defendant acting alone, approached the plaintiff and his Attorney.

    Now the defendant’s attorney is really pi$$ed.

  22. Lexis says

    @ JackFknTwist

    Note:

    That last part above was my cut and paste of what you originally wrote and was meant to be deleted. So I fear I’ve confused the situation more. LOL!

  23. Joseph L. says

    Doesn’t look good for Egan. Now he’s going to have to find another attorney willing to bear the costs of the case AND have a chunk of their attorneys fees taken by his former attorney’s lien. Plus, these types of agreements are not usually even drafted until the parties have OK’d a number. Likely Egan authorized this amount initially and then had buyers remorse.

    All of that has nothing to do with what ACTUALLY happened in Hawaii. It is just that the case (which can be proven in court) is much weaker than the attorney thought when he took it on.

  24. says

    The 100K payout isn’t necessarily an admission of guilt. It’s more like, “It’ll cost me a lot more money and a lot more time to fight this, so I’ll just pay this guy X amount of money to go away”.

  25. wheelie81 says

    This is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever read. First of all, the information is confusing and there is also a lot of information missing.

  26. Eddie's Lips, Hugh's Nips says

    “So Andy doesn’t hire competent writers and won’t invest money into a new commenting system.”

    Yeah, and all the nude photos of Hugh Jackman and Eddie Redmayne just didn’t do it for me behind the paywall. That’s why I downgraded to the Free Access option. You should check it out if you feel like you’re getting a poor value for your money.